American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Practice Exam

The Supreme Court decision that limited local and state governmental ability to impose regulations without compensation is Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. In this landmark case, the Court ruled that when a regulation deprives a property owner of all economically viable use of their land, it constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The decision established that the government must provide just compensation to property owners when they implement regulations that have such severe impacts on property use.

This ruling emphasizes the balance between governmental regulatory power and the rights of property owners. It reinforces the idea that property rights must be protected, especially when regulations impose a significant burden without offering compensation, leading to a more cautious approach by governments in land-use regulation.

While the other cases listed also address issues related to land use and governmental regulation, they focus on different aspects of regulatory takings or principles of just compensation. For example, Dolan v. City of Tigard addresses the need for a connection between the impact of a proposed development and the conditions imposed on that development. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles deals with the requirement for compensation when a regulation constitutes a temporary taking. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission also involves the necessity for a nexus between a permit condition and the public purpose